This is kind of an unfair question. I've seen Serenity so many times I can recite dialogue ( like most folks). When I saw Star Trek for the 2nd time yesterday I tried to visualize what it will look like on DVD with a big home wide-screen. WILL IT HAVE RE-WATCHABILITY? The answer now is definitely YES! After I see Star Trek 10 times I think I'll be in a better position to compare it to Serenity. For today's poll I can only answer Serenity.

I love Serenity, but I'm still angry with Joss over Wash! My wife and I loved the irony that the most realistic couple on tv was Wash and Zoe on a sci-fi (oh, sorry, sy-fy) series. It's shame Joss had to destroy that beautiful relationship just to inject a little drama in his film! Wasn't Book enough? Damn you Joss!

Star Trek was my first fanboy love, and I love this new movie! It's fun, up-beat, and the cast is ALMOST as good as the firefly cast. TOS just needs more women!

Just caught the new Star Trek today and I must say that it was incredibly good. Worth watching and worth seeing a second time.

Now as far as comparisons……..I can’t do that. First of all I’ve never seen Serenity on a big screen. All that picture filling your face and the audio blasting your eardrums in a theater will pump up ones enjoyment level ten fold.

Only when ST gets released on dvd will I be able to make a comparison. By that time though Serenity’s BDS will have come out and have special f/x that will blow the audience away

I really liked the Star Trek film. I thought the plot was a little weak, although it kept within the Star Trek lore (space-time continuum thingy), but ultimately it served the ST storyline.

I liked the way they introduced how all the characters came to meet each other, and the pace was action-packed (it moved the story along at a frenetic pace), making it a good popcorn movie - perfect for summer fare.

I liked the fact that Abrams paid homage to Joss with his silent space shots and panning techniques. He also gave a nod to both Joss and us Browncoats by using hand-held shots and "flares" in a number of scenes (more towards the first third to first half of the movie). I thought he overused the flares myself, but that's a minor quibble. Overall I liked Star Trek, but in no way (except for what I mentioned above) does it compare to Serenity.

Although they were similarly shot and paced, they're two different distinct films. The action scene on the mining drill was exciting and well shot, but it's nothing compared to the Maidenhead Bar scene. Abrams tried desparately to show that Kirk was this fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants type of guy, someone that could hang out with Mal and the crew in Persephone's worst dive and hold his own. Hmmmm........let's see - Kirk hits on Uhura, gets beat up by some Federation toughies, beds a fine-looking green-skinned girl, makes friends with a doctor, breaks the rules and winds up captain of a Federation vessel. Bad boy gets laid, cracks wise and saves the day.

Our captain is a type of bad boy, breaks rules and conventions, cracks wise and flys in a silent space with agressive baddies. Okay, Trek did perfect the baddest of baddies in space (Klingons, Romulans and Khan). But Joss perfected the "flare" hand-held shot and championed the silence in space actioners. He took the space western to new heights - a pirate who carries a six shooter.

What Abrams did was take the best of Serenity and apply the cortical electrodes to the Star Trek corpse. And what he got was a very distant cousin to the Frankenstein monster, a type of Reaver, if you will, a died-in-the-wool George Romero look-alike zombified corpse that looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck but didn't quite capture the essence of the BDM. Something was missing. Oh it was funny, and it ran amok with flare shots and hand-held scenes (especially aboard the Enterprise), but it could only mimick what has been described as the best sci-fi movie to come along since the original Star Wars trilogy.

Some may go as far as saying that Serenity, with it's beloved characters, has transformed the space opera and surpassed the bold innovations of the Star Wars saga. One could say that Abrams is a Browncoat at heart, this is based, IMHO, to how ST was shot, set and paced. It's as though he saw the genius behind what came before in Joss's vision and, like those that came before Abrams were influenced by Kurosawa, Kubrick and the like, he too saw fit to pay homage to a fellow filmmaker by paying the highest compliment - copy, as best he can, the best of what inspired him.

So, by virtue of inspiration, Serenity is the better film. When you see it again pay special attention to the first half-hour to 45 minutes of the film. You will see very similar shots and pacing (in particular the space scenes).

BTW, the young officer who takes over the doomed ship (The Kelvin), who we later find out is Kirk's father, will be playing Thor in the upcoming movie due to come out in 2011.

Saw Star Trek yesterday, a very good film nice change from the recent blockbuster trend of not much brains but still it is no contest for me really. Serenity has a better cast (ST does have a great cast but not overly fanbulous), Serenity has a deeper more interesting storyline which doesn't completely follow standard narrative especially in hollywood, Serenity for me might not have as realistic special effects as Star Trek but they more impressive in how they were used. Always been a fan of Star Trek but not quite a fanboy but I still had issues with film not fanboy nit picks but just overall style, content, etc. The villian Nero in Star Trek was pretty routine and not overly interesting. But Star Trek had many great moments and well I do like it a lot, the beginning was impressive (though not as much as Serenity I might add), it had some genuinely original humourous moments, had a decent ending, few nice touches here and there, and the majority of the cast was great.

To me Star Trek is a staple for blockbusters nowadays, although Serenity could be considered a blockbuster but honestly its so much more than that and for me can keep up with the truly great films.

In the ST movie, I really thought they would somehow fix the mess and return to how things are supposed to be. When it didn't, I left the theater depressed.

Both movies killed off an entire planet. But somehow watching it happen as opposed to discovering that it had happened in the past rubs salt in the wound. I can't stand to watch the ST movie again. It is just too sad. For that matter, I don't watch Serenity that often either. I get as much fun-joy from either of these movies as watching Schindler's List.

(Still, Schindler's List is one of my fav movies of all time, in terms of what I think is a near-perfect movie. I just don't watch it over and over again is all.)

Just a sample: "Now, it is true that many stars end their lives by going super nova. But there are indications, subtle hints that can be gleaned that allow one to predict the cataclysm in advance—usually by at least a few million years. So it must be that Spock was substantially delayed. A woman, no doubt. Let that pass.... "

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.